12 April, 2010

Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity' - Telegraph

That will certainly be something to see him try. Picture the Queen beating off him with her purse if he tries when the Pope visits Buckingham Palace. It'll make the nightly news alright! Another success in Dawkin's campaign of self promotion!

P L E A S E..... Somethings are just too far outside the realm of reality to actually believe.

And Dawkin's thinks that 'believers' are foolish!

Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity' - Telegraph


  1. I understand the argument is that since the United Nations does not recognize the Vatican as a country, then the pope is not a head of State.

    Since when must a country be a member of the United Nations in order for it to be a sovereign country? Switzerland was not a member for a very long time. Does that mean it wasn't a country?

  2. Suzanne: I think more importantly, the Vatican does have diplomatic relations with Great Britain. Thus England DOES recognize the Vatican State and Pope as a Head of State.

    Fr. Tim

  3. The only real crime against humanity is that Dawkins and his clone Hitchens are still taking up good space, and using up their quota of oxygen, which could be put to better use elsewhere.

    Lord Save us from Buffoons.

  4. I've done a little exploring of the exact state of diplomatic relations between Vatican City and the UN and other world governments.

    There are none. Not precisely. It's the Holy See which has diplomatic relations with any body. And they are not the same thing.

    This is an unnecessarily complicated system of interlocking departments, each of them sheltered from outside influence, but each also interdependent on all the others. If this were a corporation within the United States, or most other capitalist countries (not Canada, unfortunately), such an organization would not be allowed, because the purpose of such convolutions is to protect the inner core at all costs, no matter what irregularities/illegalities/chicaneries that core is ultimately responsible for.

    The more elaborate the structure of such an organization, the more I question its agenda. Who needs to be this complicated?

  5. As for what Dawkins and Hutchens want...why is everyone so upset about it? Since when is a head of state immune from prosecution?

    And since when is the guilt or innocence of an accused decided upon before a trial has been conducted? It stands to reason, therefore, that before a trial can be held, an arrest must be made.

    Unless Suzanne is willing to abandon her wish for universal equality...

  6. Lady Janus:

    Don't you think that there should be a shred of evidence that someone has committed a crime, before clowns like Dawk and Hitch can try their silliness?

    Since My Dear Wife and her sister were abused by their father, and everyone who saw them thought they were the perfect family, and nobody said or did anything, I think that the next time PM Harper goes to England, we should get Dawk and Hitch to have him arrested for complicity in their abuse, and the abuse of all others in this country who were sexually abused over the years.

    While we are on that, my family was forced out of Ireland a few generations back, and I want our ancestral land back, or compensation for the skulduggery.

    It does get kind of silly, if you ask me.

    Let's all of us Christians and Witches just live today as today, and stop playing silly buggers.

  7. Lady Janus:

    I am interested in your first comment though, and will try to dig up some data as well. Good points.


  8. My first coments have these links (I forgot to include them, sorry):



    As for the other, I see a lot of people running around yelling that Dawkins and Hutchens are crazy atheists and should be ignored because after all, the pope is the pope and should be respected!

    All a way of trying to sweep something under a rug, for those who are looking for the fire inside the smoke.

    Accusations have been made of criminal activity. Doesn't matter who the accusers are any more than who the accused is. It needs to be seen to. And it needs to be seen to be seen to.

    You don't start investigating or otherwise clearing up a criminal matter by first deciding guilt or innocence. You start with enumerating the accusatory offenses and, if a judge issues a warrant, making an arrest. Then the trial. Then the verdict.

    There are an awful lot of people who want to eliminate this process based on nothing more than, "the pope is the pope." As if that were any guarantee of anything. As if a pope is utterly incapable of such things. Look at history.


Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics